30 years ago, James Hansen testified to Congress about the dangers of human-caused climate change. In his testimony, Hansen showed the results of his 1988 study using a climate model to project future global warming under three possible scenarios, ranging from ‘business as usual’ heavy pollution in his Scenario A to ‘draconian emissions cuts’ in Scenario C, with a moderate Scenario B in between.
...
The actual 1988–2017 temperature increase was about 0.6°C. Hansen’s 1988 global climate model was almost spot-on.
...
Hansen’s predictions have thus become a target of climate denier misinformation. It began way back in 1998, when the Cato Institute’s Patrick Michaels – who has admitted that something like 40% of his salary comes from the fossil fuel industry – arguably committed perjury in testimony to Congress. Invited by Republicans to testify as the Kyoto Protocol climate agreement was in the works, Michaels was asked to evaluate how Hansen’s predictions were faring 10 years later.

In his presentation, Michaels deleted Hansen’s Scenarios B and C – the ones closest to reality – and only showed Scenario A to make it seem as though Hansen had drastically over-predicted global warming. Deleting inconvenient data in order to fool his audience became a habit for Patrick Michaels, who quickly earned a reputation of dishonesty in the climate science world, but has nevertheless remained a favorite of oil industry and conservative media.

Last week in the Wall Street Journal, Michaels was joined by Ryan Maue in an op-ed that again grossly distorted Hansen’s 1988 paper. Maue is a young scientist with a contrarian streak who’s published some serious research on hurricanes, but since joining the Cato Institute last year, seems to have sold off his remaining credibility to the fossil fuel industry.
...
They provided no evidence to support this claim, and it takes just 30 seconds to fact check. In reality, global surface temperatures have increased by about 0.35°C since 2000 – precisely in line with Hansen’s 1988 model projections, as shown above. And it’s unscientific to simply “discount” the El Niño of 2015-16, because between the years 1999 and 2014, seven were cooled by La Niña events while just four experienced an El Niño warming. Yet despite the preponderance of La Niña events, global surface temperatures still warmed 0.15°C during that time. There’s simply not an ounce of truth to Michaels’ and Maue’s central WSJ claim.
...
Michaels and Maue don’t want us to cut carbon pollution, and it’s easy to understand why. They work for the Cato Institute, which was co-founded by and is heavily controlled by the Koch brothers, who have donated more than $30 million to Cato. As Michaels admitted, they’re basically fossil fuel industry employees.
...
Michaels and Maue want us to bet the future of all life on Earth. They want us to put all our chips on black – a bet that burning billions of barrels of oil and billions of tons of coal every year won’t cause dangerous climate change. They want us to make that bet even though their arguments are based on unsupported lies, whilst they cash paychecks from the Koch brothers.

My blog (mostly photos): Fort Ephemera - My Flickr Photostream
“You only get one sunrise and one sunset a day, and you only get so many days on the planet. A good photographer does the math and doesn’t waste either.” ―Galen Rowell

Groundbreaking new findings announced Monday suggest the record-setting heat wave plaguing much of the United States may be due to radiation emitted from an enormous star located in the center of the solar system.

Scientists believe the star, which they have named G2V65, may in fact be the same bright yellow orb seen arcing over the sky day after day, and given its extreme heat and proximity to Earth, it is likely not only to have caused the heat wave, but to be responsible for every warm day in human history.

"The world is suffering more today from the good people who want to mind other men's business than it is from the bad people who are willing to let everybody look after their own individual affairs." - Clarence Darrow

It’s only July, but it has already been a long, hot spring and summer. The contiguous U.S. endured the warmest May ever recorded, and in June, the average temperature was 1.7 degrees Celsius (3.0 degrees Fahrenheit) above the 20th century average. Iowa, New Mexico and Texas set record highs for their minimum temperatures in June, and as of July 3, nearly 30 percent of the Lower 48 was experiencing drought conditions. And it’s not just the U.S. During the first five months of 2018, nearly every continent experienced record warm temperatures, and May 2018 marked the 401st consecutive month in which temperatures exceeded the 20th century average.

If decision-makers can’t agree on politics, they might be persuaded by economics, said Thomas Stocker, a climate scientist and a longtime member of IPCC. De-carbonizing our energy systems is “the biggest opportunity in the 21st century,” he told the EuroScience Open Forum.

Some local and state governments in the U.S. are exploring that opportunity. “The Trump White House is not just failing to do climate,” Parmesan said. “It’s doing its best to stop every advance we’ve made in the last 20 years, but what’s happening is a reaction from the ground level up that’s countering that national-level resistance.” (The White House did not respond to FiveThirtyEight’s request for comment.) As an example, she pointed to Georgetown, Texas, a city north of Austin. The electric company there is owned by the city, which has just switched to 100 percent renewable energy. “The mayor is quite conservative, and he got mad when people said it was for climate change,” she said. “He said, ‘No, no — it just makes economic sense.’”

Time and tide melt the snowman.

There are worlds out there where the sky is burning, where the sea's asleep and the rivers dream, people made of smoke and cities made of song. Somewhere there's danger, somewhere there's injustice and somewhere else the tea is getting cold. Come on, Ace, we've got work to do.
-- The Doctor

Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:17 am
Zarathud: The sad thing is that Barak Obama is a very intelligent and articulate person, even when you disagree with his views it's clear that he's very thoughtful. I would have loved to see Obama in a real debate.
Me: Wait 12 years, when he runs for president. :-)

Next thing you know, someone's going to suggest we could fix Global Warming with a really big umbrella in space.

Didn’t Highlander 2 already do that?

Highlander 2 never happened!

Excellent point.

There was that one scene where Connor and Rameriez argue over who got shot more. That was funny. So I can’t agree that it was never made. Sorry.

That scene was not funny because it doesn't exist because the movie doesn't exist.

By saying “That scene” you are acknowledging the existence of said scene. Much like Connor yelled, “Ramírez my old friend Ramírez” and brought a 500 year old headless corpse back to life, you have now brought Highlander 2 back to life.

Next thing you know, someone's going to suggest we could fix Global Warming with a really big umbrella in space.

Didn’t Highlander 2 already do that?

Highlander 2 never happened!

Excellent point.

There was that one scene where Connor and Rameriez argue over who got shot more. That was funny. So I can’t agree that it was never made. Sorry.

That scene was not funny because it doesn't exist because the movie doesn't exist.

By saying “That scene” you are acknowledging the existence of said scene. Much like Connor yelled, “Ramírez my old friend Ramírez” and brought a 500 year old headless corpse back to life, you have now brought Highlander 2 back to life.

Highlander 2 cannot be brought back to life, as it never existed. I was not acknowledging the existence of that scene, I was merely mirroring your terminology regarding whatever you thought you saw in whatever fever dream you had where you imagined the existence of Highlander 2.

Is there a simplified version? The more complex, the easier to cheat I’d think. But otherwise it does seem like the perfect response, unless one is ideologically opposed to using the tax system for sociatal change. Personally I’d love if the tax system were reworked to use capitalism for the greater good.

Carbon tax is a good approach. Another way to go is feed-in tariffs. They've worked well in Europe. RECs are another alternative. There are a lot of workable systems. The GOP is the problem. They are fueled by petro dollars. And they run everything...

Is there a simplified version? The more complex, the easier to cheat I’d think. But otherwise it does seem like the perfect response, unless one is ideologically opposed to using the tax system for sociatal change. Personally I’d love if the tax system were reworked to use capitalism for the greater good.

There are a number of different ways to do a carbon tax. You can even do it in a way that is revenue neutral, so it's not a "tax increase." You assign a value to the cost of carbon — say, $150/ton — and factor that in as a tax, calculated each step of the way, like a VAT. Everything you purchase would include a carbon tax.

Then you take the monies raised from that carbon tax — let's say $500 billion a year — and divide it by the number of adults in the United States — let's estimate 250 million — which is $2,000 a person. Anyone who files an income tax return would have access to a refundable $2,000 tax credit, which would prevent the carbon tax from being regressive. This would discourage carbon use, make the taxation on carbon use progressive, and encourage more people to file proper income tax forms in order to receive the credit — net positives all around.

Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:17 am
Zarathud: The sad thing is that Barak Obama is a very intelligent and articulate person, even when you disagree with his views it's clear that he's very thoughtful. I would have loved to see Obama in a real debate.
Me: Wait 12 years, when he runs for president. :-)

Poring over four decades of satellite data, climate scientists have concluded for the first time that humans are pushing seasonal temperatures out of balance—shifting what one researcher called the very “march of the seasons themselves.”

Ever-mindful of calculable uncertainty and climate deniers, the authors give “odds of roughly 5 in 1 million” of these changes occurring naturally, without human influence.

Poring over four decades of satellite data, climate scientists have concluded for the first time that humans are pushing seasonal temperatures out of balance—shifting what one researcher called the very “march of the seasons themselves.”

Ever-mindful of calculable uncertainty and climate deniers, the authors give “odds of roughly 5 in 1 million” of these changes occurring naturally, without human influence.

One of the stranger conspiracy theories against climate science is that corporate interests are pulling all the strings so that “Big Green” can get rich from action against climate change. Of course, it’s no secret that industries related to fossil fuels have lobbied for the exact opposite, pushing to avoid any significant climate policy.

So what do American industries spend to lobby Congress on this issue?

Drexel University’s Robert Brulle used lobbying reporting laws to find out. Not every penny spent on persuading congresspeople has to be reported—and a lot of political activities, like think tank funding, don’t count as lobbying. But spending on lobbying itself has been tracked in the US since a 1995 law mandated it. Brulle was able to sift through climate-related expenditures between 2000 and 2016, sorting the entities into groups.

The result: "Big Green" is being massively outspent by fossil fuel industries.

There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

I don't know that it's far more than we here in this thread thought, but this is a good analysis that makes clear just how fucked up the US system is. And how fucked up it is that the bell is tolled about renewable energy / EV / etc subsidies in the face of what's actually being subsidized and to what extent. And how screwed the US is on any reasonable climate change mitigation until/unless said subsidies are drastically altered.

I don't know that it's far more than we here in this thread thought, but this is a good analysis that makes clear just how fucked up the US system is. And how fucked up it is that the bell is tolled about renewable energy / EV / etc subsidies in the face of what's actually being subsidized and to what extent. And how screwed the US is on any reasonable climate change mitigation until/unless said subsidies are drastically altered.

I thought that was common knowledge to everyone but Fox Watch News consumers.

Most energy subsidies go not to renewables but to producing more of the dirty stuff.

Though I have to admit I only ever thought about direct subsidy and regulation. This never entered my mind as something to consider.

For one thing, it leaves out the annual $14.5 billion in consumption subsidies — things like the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), which helps lower-income residents pay their (fuel oil) heating bills.

It also leaves out subsidies for overseas fossil fuel projects ($2.1 billion a year).

Which I know nothing about aside from all of our proposed explorations and equipment giveaways to Russia, circa 2016...

Most significantly, OCI’s analysis leaves out indirect subsidies — things like the money the US military spends to protect oil shipping routes, or the unpaid costs of health and climate impacts from burning fossil fuels. These indirect subsidies reach to the hundreds of billions, dwarfing direct subsidies — the IMF says that, globally speaking, they amount to $5.3 trillion a year. But they are controversial and very difficult to measure precisely.

I don't think that fully counts. I say fully because it is pretty clear after 47 years on this earth that modern America does wage war for oil.

Dropping subsidies for the corps is one thing. Dropping assistance programs like LHEAP and labeling them as consumption subsidies is a bit disingenuous to my mind. The only current alternative is to drop the net out from under the people that need it most.

Dropping subsidies for the corps is one thing. Dropping assistance programs like LHEAP and labeling them as consumption subsidies is a bit disingenuous to my mind. The only current alternative is to drop the net out from under the people that need it most.

I don't think it's disingenuous. I think it's broadening the picture. Just because the subsidy is there is not to say it's not in some ways justified or necessary or whatever. It's an examination of part of what is propping up one of the fossil fuels. It's food for thought, not a rally cry for action.

Dropping subsidies for the corps is one thing. Dropping assistance programs like LHEAP and labeling them as consumption subsidies is a bit disingenuous to my mind. The only current alternative is to drop the net out from under the people that need it most.

I don't think it's disingenuous. I think it's broadening the picture. Just because the subsidy is there is not to say it's not in some ways justified or necessary or whatever. It's an examination of part of what is propping up one of the fossil fuels. It's food for thought, not a rally cry for action.

I agree. I think the reality is "We find that, at recent US oil prices of US$50 per barrel, tax preferences and other subsidies push nearly half of new, yet-to-be-developed oil into profitability." The information provided in that report shows that we definitely need some balance in order to develop renewables, but it's not feasible to drop all those subsidies. The infrastructure and production doesn't exist. If we don't want $100/barrel oil, then you've got to keep the oil field replacement going.

My suggestion would be revoke 20% of the subsidies and transfer the full dollar amount to renewables.

"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog

The Trump administration on Thursday announced plans to freeze fuel-efficiency requirements for the nation’s cars and trucks through 2026 — a massive regulatory rollback likely to spur a legal battle with California and other states, as well as create potential upheaval in the nation’s automotive market.

The proposal represents an abrupt reversal of the findings that the government reached under President Barack Obama, when regulators argued that requiring more-fuel-efficient vehicles would improve public health, combat climate change and save consumers money without compromising safety.

Trump’s plan also undercuts California’s long-standing ability to set its own tailpipe restrictions, most recently in an effort to curb greenhouse-gas emissions.

The proposal argues that forcing automakers to reach a fleetwide average of 51.4 miles per gallon by 2025, as the Obama administration required, would make vehicles more expensive and encourage people to stick to driving older, less-safe cars and trucks. The administration estimates that halting more-ambitous fuel-efficiency targets would save Americans thousands of dollars on every new vehicle purchased and avoid 1,000 road deaths a year.
...
Some automakers privately have expressed unease at the prospect of abrupt changes in fuel standards and having to meet different standards in different states. Industry representatives on Thursday commended the Trump administration for putting out multiple options for public comment but stressed that they continue to support fuel-economy increases.
...
In one recent internal presentation, part of which was obtained by The Washington Post, officials at the EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality warned that the proposal at that point contained “a wide range of errors, use of outdated data, and unsupported assumptions.”

Ultimately, the two agencies published Thursday’s proposal jointly, and acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler publicly defended the proposal during testimony Wednesday before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

The administration on Thursday said it will accept public comment on its proposal for 60 days. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the EPA also plan to hold public hearings in Washington, Detroit and Los Angeles.

As pointed out in the article, Drumpf's reasoned comments on wind turbines are based solely on not liking how they look from his Scotland golf course, and losing his lawsuit against the government attempting to stop them from being made.

Better odds than the lottery and someone always eventually wins the lottery. Clearly not a problem.

"Even the biased climate change SCIENTISTS, who are PAID to support the LIBERAL climate change agenda, admit that the so-called climate change - IF IT EXISTS - could be due to natural causes and NOT DUE TO HUMAN ACTIVITY AT ALL!!!"

There's pretty damn compelling evidence - or a lack of it - in that for all the climate shifts we've detected in fossil/rock/ice/sediment records, none of them has been as abrupt as the one we're going through right now.

I suppose you might argue that it's impossible to say with certainty that humanity's belching CO2 and Methane into the atmosphere at record levels isn't the cause - because we've never had an opportunity to witness ourselves destroy a planet before - but you'd have to be nearly brain dead to accept that as a likelihood.

There's pretty damn compelling evidence - or a lack of it - in that for all the climate shifts we've detected in fossil/rock/ice/sediment records, none of them has been as abrupt as the one we're going through right now.

I suppose you might argue that it's impossible to say with certainty that humanity's belching CO2 and Methane into the atmosphere at record levels isn't the cause - because we've never had an opportunity to witness ourselves destroy a planet before - but you'd have to be nearly brain dead to accept that as a likelihood.

You'd also have to be a terrible gambler to bet the future of the species on the slim (practically zero) odds that it ain't us. I mean the remedy is largely painless (at the moment) and the alternative is total collapse.

" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. MertonMYT

Holy crap, that page has elements from 20-30 different domains. This has become standard with modern media pages but it's still painful when you're trying to get specific code to run and prevent others.

According the the page, there has been no change in my lifetime. Which is interesting, because we just had one of the worst summers as far as heat goes that I can remember. Heat and humidity combined to make it a living hell without air conditioning. Like, Texas living hell. I live in Canada, remember.